Chief Constable Nick Ephgrave has called for Surrey councils to build transit sites for travellers in order to cut down on unauthorised encampments (Image: Surrey Advertiser)

Sign up to FREE email alerts from SurreyLive - daily

When you subscribe we will use the information you provide to send you these newsletters. Sometimes they’ll include recommendations for other related newsletters or services we offer. OurPrivacy Noticeexplains more about how we use your data, and your rights. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Surrey will remain "vulnerable" to further unauthorised encampments unless it provides transit sites for travellers, the county's chief constable has said.

In an open letter to the Surrey Advertiser , Chief Constable Nick Ephgrave said he could "ill afford" the resources and energy required to deal with such encampments and that even one transit site would make "an enormous difference".

His letter, printed in full at the end of this story, follows a summer in which multiple unauthorised encampments have been established across the county, leading to frustration and, in some cases, anger from local residents.

Chief Constable Ephgrave said he recognised the feelings of local residents and that Surrey Police would deal with criminality and assist local authorities, but the options available to the force were "limited" without transit sites being available.

However, as the Chief Constable explains in his letter: "The shortcoming is that under the only legislation that we can utilise, there is nothing to stop those evicted from simply moving 100 yards down the road and setting up camp there.

"We then have to go through the whole rigmarole again and this is exactly what has happened this year, with repeated encampments as we follow groups round the county, creating further upset and disruption far and wide."

This would change if the county had designated transit sites available for travellers. If such a site is available, police are able to direct unauthorised encampments to move there immediately and, the Chief Constable says, can arrest them if they refuse or return to camp unlawfully elsewhere within three months.

Chief Constable Ephgrave added: "An increasing number of surrounding counties have created designated transit sites and their experience has been that this significantly addresses the issue of unauthorised encampments.

"Surrey, without any such sites, remains vulnerable to those who know the legislation and understand that the powers available to police are more limited, no doubt making Surrey an attractive venue for those who wish to set up unauthorised encampments."

An unauthorised encampment on Claygate Recreation Ground led to a tense standoff with angry residents (Image: Mary Marshall)

The Chief Constable also used his letter to respond to concerns that the police were reluctant to investigate crimes allegedly committed by members of the travelling community.

He wrote: "My clear direction to officers is that where there is criminality and where there is sufficient evidence to take action against identified perpetrators, then we will do so swiftly and firmly.

"The frustration comes when it is not possible to attribute a criminal act, for example criminal damage, to any one individual due to a lack of witnesses or other evidence to implicate them. This is no different to any other crime.

The tweet, published on Tuesday (August 7) read: “If we evidence a criminal damage then we would act. But can’t usually. You say upsetting to endure, consider for a second, how upsetting it would be, being uprooted every few days.

“That’s why we always act in the best interests of all parties with proportionality and legality.”

Surrey Police later released a statement on the tweet which said: “We appreciate the concern it has raised, given the impact unauthorised encampments have had on the country, however we serve all communities equally and will not tolerate discriminatory behaviour.”

Chief Constable Nick Ephgrave's Open Letter

Dear Editor

This summer has seen an unprecedented number of unauthorised encampments, no part of the county has been unaffected and as the summer has passed, the amount of ill feeling and anger about a perceived lack of action by police has been palpable.

The disappointing thing is that all of this was predicted and there is a practical solution available that would help. It has been successfully implemented in a number of surrounding counties, but has yet to be implemented in Surrey, leaving the local authorities and police with limited powers to deal with those intent on trespass.

Before I come to that solution, let me make it clear that there are two related but separate issues that need to be addressed. The first is the issue of an unauthorised encampment. This is of itself not a criminal matter and the lead agency for implementing eviction is the local authority, working with the land owner supported where necessary by the police. In this regard, it is absolutely the case that we in the police and our colleagues in the Boroughs and Districts have significantly upped our game this year and now have well-rehearsed and effective procedures for assessing and evicting unauthorised encampments in accordance with the legislation currently available to us. The shortcoming is that under the only legislation that we can utilise, there is nothing to stop those evicted from simply moving 100 yards down the road and setting up camp there. We then have to go through the whole rigmarole again and this is exactly what has happened this year, with repeated encampments as we follow groups round the county, creating further upset and disruption far and wide.

The related issue is that of criminality associated with some of the encampments. My clear direction to officers is that where there is criminality and where there is sufficient evidence to take action against identified perpetrators, then we will do so swiftly and firmly. The frustration comes when it is not possible to attribute a criminal act, for example criminal damage, to any one individual due to a lack of witnesses or other evidence to implicate them. This is no different to any other crime. One cannot simply arrest whole groups of people because 'one of them must have done it'.

So, what else might be done? Under the legislation, if a designated transit site is available, the police are enabled to direct encampments to move immediately to the transit site, with far fewer criteria necessary to act. If those on the encampment refuse, or return to camp unlawfully elsewhere within three months they are liable to immediate arrest. Currently, Surrey has no transit sites and so none of these powers are available.

An increasing number of surrounding counties have created designated transit sites and their experience has been that this significantly addresses the issue of unauthorised encampments. Surrey, without any such sites, remains vulnerable to those who know the legislation and understand that the powers available to police are more limited, no doubt making Surrey an attractive venue for those who wish to set up unauthorised encampments.

To conclude, I recognise the frustration and anger of local residents and businesses affected by unauthorised encampments. We will deal with criminality as and when it occurs and continue to support local authorities in their actions, but the options available to my officers are limited and given other demands, I can ill afford the enormous resource and energy my officers put in to dealing with this. The provision of even one transit site will make an enormous difference to our ability to respond to unauthorised encampments, but it is not in my gift to make it happen - that is a difficult political decision that sits with our local leaders who I know have the issue under active consideration.